Palin's comments/no comments

[magyar123]

What surprised me watching the Biden/Palin debate, is that she never commented/answered the moderator's question about bankruptcy trustees not being allowed to re-do mortgage/other loan payments when potential filers might lose their house or their car.
She just went on and on and on changing the subject.
I guess this is just typical Republican BS.

[fltoo]

I am an independent, but I thought both did well. They are both intelligent, hard workers dedicating themselves to family and their country which I can't say for most politicians.

Giving a BK judge the ability to modify mortgages is not feasible. There are way more people with non predatory mortgages paying their bills and it would not be fair to them.

Ultimately, its probably going to be the choice of first on the ticket.

[momof5]

This is probably going to be a huge post but I found all this interestin, I also am an independent.

PALIN: Said of Democratic presidential candidate Obama: "94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction."

THE FACTS: The dubious count includes repetitive votes as well as votes to cut taxes for the middle class while raising them on the rich. An analysis by factcheck.org found that 23 of the votes were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all, seven were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, 11 would have increased taxes on only those making more than $1 million a year.

___

BIDEN: Complained about "economic policies of the last eight years" that led to "excessive deregulation."

THE FACTS: Biden voted for 1999 deregulation that liberal groups are blaming for part of the financial crisis today. The law allowed Wall Street investment banks to create the kind of mortgage-related securities at the core of the problem now. The law was widely backed by Republicans as well as by Democratic President Clinton, who argues it has stopped the crisis today from being worse.

___

PALIN: Criticized Obama's "plan to mandate health care coverage and have universal government run program" for health care, and added: "I don't think it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the Feds."

THE FACTS: Wrong on several counts. Obama's plan does not provide for universal coverage, only mandates insurance for children and doesn't turn the system over to the government. Most people would still get private insurance through their work. Obama proposes that the government subsidize the cost of health coverage for millions who have trouble affording it and he'd set up an exchange to negotiate prices and benefits with private insurers — with one option being a government-run plan.

___

BIDEN: Warned that Republican presidential candidate John McCain's $5,000 tax credit to help families buy health coverage "will go straight to the insurance company."

THE FACTS: That's not surprising — the money is meant to pay for health insurance. The Obama campaign tried to capitalize on the candidates' health care exchange by issuing an ad Friday contending that the Republicans can't explain "the McCain health tax."

___

PALIN: "Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures. He sounded that warning bell."

THE FACTS: Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska led an effort in 2005 to tighten regulation on the mortgage underwriters — McCain joined as a co-sponsor a year later. The legislation was never taken up by the full Senate, then under Republican control.

___

BIDEN: Said McCain supports tax breaks for oil companies, and "wants to give them another $4 billion tax cut."

THE FACTS: Biden is repeating a favorite saw of the Obama campaign, and it's misleading. McCain supports a cut in income taxes for all corporations, and doesn't single out any one industry for that benefit.
------------------

PALIN: Said the United States has reduced its troop level in Iraq to a number below where it was when the troop increase began in early 2007.

THE FACTS: Not correct. The Pentagon says there are currently 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about 17,000 more than there were before the 2007 military buildup began.

___

BIDEN: "As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health care industry — deregulate it and let the free market move — like he did for the banking industry."

THE FACTS: Biden and Obama have been perpetuating this distortion of what McCain wrote in an article for the American Academy of Actuaries. McCain, laying out his health plan, only referred to deregulation when saying people should be allowed to buy health insurance across state lines. In that context, he wrote: "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

___

PALIN: Said Alaska is "building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline, which is North America's largest and most expensive infrastructure project ever to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets."

THE FACTS: Not quite. Construction is at least six years away. So far the state has only awarded a license to Trans Canada Corp., that comes with $500 million in seed money in exchange for commitments toward a lengthy and costly process to getting a federal certificate. At an August news conference after the state Legislature approved the license, Palin said, "It's not a done deal."

___

PALIN: "Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year."

BIDEN: "The charge is absolutely not true. Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes."

THE FACTS: The vote was on a nonbinding budget resolution that assumed that President Bush's tax cuts would expire, as scheduled, in 2011. If that actually happened, it could mean higher taxes for people making as little as about $42,000. But Obama is proposing tax increases only on the wealthy, and would cut taxes for most others.

___

PALIN: Said a McCain-Palin administration "will support Israel," including "building our embassy ... in Jerusalem."

THE FACTS: Moving the U.S. Embassy from its present location in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is a perennial promise of presidential candidates courting the Jewish-American vote. In fact, moving the embassy is actually required by U.S. law. But successive administrations of both parties, including George W. Bush's, have made the same pledge only to find that the realities of Middle East peacemaking have forced them to invoke a waiver to delay it. Jerusalem is claimed as a capital by both Israel and the Palestinians and Israel's occupation of east Jerusalem is not internationally recognized. The city's status is one of the key issues of disagreement in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

___

[woeisme]

Giving a BK judge the ability to modify mortgages is not feasible. There are way more people with non predatory mortgages paying their bills and it would not be fair to them.

Ultimately, its probably going to be the choice of first on the ticket.

I agree with your final point, that this election is going to be decided on the Obama/McCain part of the ticket, not Palin/Biden, but don't think I understand the reasoning of your other point.

There are plenty of people paying their full credit card bills, isn't it unfair to those that don't file that someone can file BK and have these debts modified, or in the case of CH 7, completely forgiven? Someone who files can cram down car loans if they are over 900+ days old, why isn't this unfair to those that don't file and pay their car loans in full? Some districts even allow lein stripping of a second mortgage provided that the BK filer is upside down on the first mortgage, is this fair to those paying off their HELOC's? If we use the same logic, then no one should ever be able to file Bankruptcy, it's just not fair to those who don't file and pay their bills.

The other side of the coin for me is that this crisis it is ALREADY unfair to those who pay their bills, they are losing their home equity and investments just as surely as those who are undergoing foreclosure and defaulting to their creditors. They might well lose their jobs or not be able to keep their businesses running if the economy tanks. The economy is tanking because of the housing market crisis. If these loans are restructured, those that don't refinance will still benefit because the market will stabilize, their equity won't continue to sink, their retirement portfolio's won't lose so much value, their neighborhood won't become such a blight of abandoned houses, so on and so on. So which is more unfair? Letting a few people who are desperate enough to file BK have their loans modified (and they will take the 7-10 year hit to their credit and live under the thumb of a CH 13 trustee for 5 years, which is no picnic, not exactly a free ride) which should improve the overall economic picture, or is it more unfair to let everybody go down the tubes together just so some BK filer won't get a better deal?

Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.

[fltoo]

Hi Woe

The reason why it isn't fair is because the people paying their mortgages will not have the same option.

Everyone has the option to file BK if they choose. So, if you let BK judges modify mortgages, then you must let anyone go to court and have a judge modify their loans.

Bifurcation of liens allows for the debtor to pay back some of the unsecured debt first, no?

As for the rest of your post, I give up, I agree, it is a huge mess.

[Mi Bankruptcy]

Hi Woe

The reason why it isn't fair is because the people paying their mortgages will not have the same option.

Everyone has the option to file BK if they choose. So, if you let BK judges modify mortgages, then you must let anyone go to court and have a judge modify their loans.

Bifurcation of liens allows for the debtor to pay back some of the unsecured debt first, no?

As for the rest of your post, I give up, I agree, it is a huge mess.

I support modifications of loans if:

They are in foreclosure and they were making all their payments before the rate adjusted. I purchased my home 7 years ago and they were really trying to push me to take an adjustable rate mortgage. I put my foot down after going to three places and told them I wanted it at a FIXED rate. I even told one lender that he mentioned it again I was walking.. He did.. I walked

Now.. if these people were pushed or baited into the loan or lied to saying it would most likely only adjust at a half point or one point. That's my concern.Again I support this if they were making payments prior to the reset. They should be allowed to get a pass. It's kind of like our credit cards.. You miss one payment and they jack the rate up. Now.. individuals make one mistake.. and they lose their house?

Is it fair to me the responsible person? No. However, be unfair to me rather than watching a family lose their home and having homes near me abandoned dropping the value of the homes around me. Just my 2 cents

[kornellred]

I'm glad I don't have a dog in this fight - I have always been a renter and the freedom of being one means that I have less to lose. But not much else

[Flamingo]

I agree with your final point, that this election is going to be decided on the Obama/McCain part of the ticket, not Palin/Biden, but don't think I understand the reasoning of your other point.

There are plenty of people paying their full credit card bills, isn't it unfair to those that don't file that someone can file BK and have these debts modified, or in the case of CH 7, completely forgiven? Someone who files can cram down car loans if they are over 900+ days old, why isn't this unfair to those that don't file and pay their car loans in full? Some districts even allow lein stripping of a second mortgage provided that the BK filer is upside down on the first mortgage, is this fair to those paying off their HELOC's? If we use the same logic, then no one should ever be able to file Bankruptcy, it's just not fair to those who don't file and pay their bills.

The other side of the coin for me is that this crisis it is ALREADY unfair to those who pay their bills, they are losing their home equity and investments just as surely as those who are undergoing foreclosure and defaulting to their creditors. They might well lose their jobs or not be able to keep their businesses running if the economy tanks. The economy is tanking because of the housing market crisis. If these loans are restructured, those that don't refinance will still benefit because the market will stabilize, their equity won't continue to sink, their retirement portfolio's won't lose so much value, their neighborhood won't become such a blight of abandoned houses, so on and so on. So which is more unfair? Letting a few people who are desperate enough to file BK have their loans modified (and they will take the 7-10 year hit to their credit and live under the thumb of a CH 13 trustee for 5 years, which is no picnic, not exactly a free ride) which should improve the overall economic picture, or is it more unfair to let everybody go down the tubes together just so some BK filer won't get a better deal?

Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.

There are others on that soapbox with you...on top of what you state above, think about the large numbers of foreclosures and bankruptcies occurring. Someone has to pick up the tab for all of that and just as we do for insurance fraud, welfare and government fraud, shoplifting and employee theft, just to give a few examples, we all end up paying for all the write-offs and BKs, the same folks had to do when we filed BK. It ends up as rising costs on everything from services, food to day-to-day necessities. What just occurred with this "bailout" situation is a good example.

[NowImDownInIt]

Well.............. When I was 20, I had a /barely/ 500 credit score. I was making decent money, but didn't take into account the cost of the baby I had on the way. I was approved for 100% financing on a $70,000 house. My dad's girlfriend at the time was a mortgage broker. She told me all the way up until closing that it would be cheaper to own than rent, but my payments (with PMI) were $912. 6 months later the bank was calling and threatening to foreclose. Luckily (by the grace of God) I put the house up FSBO and closed on the exact date that I was due to foreclose. This was all in a fixed rate mortgage..... and I've forgotten what my point is, but I will post this anyway and hopefully with re-reading through I will remember.

[fltoo]

LOL And, you are young, imagine being so old that you go into your closet and can't figure out why.

ARMs have been getting a bad rap because of how lenders started using them to qualify buyers.

They were designed for people who would not be in their house for more than say, 3-5 years. They are a great product used properly. They have a lower rate so that you can "make up" the cost of selling in a short time.

Problem arose when the government pushed lenders to get lower income people in housing. Lenders quickly figured out that if they qualified someone on an ARM, it would be easy to meet Fannie and Freddie guidelines and be able to sell the loan to the secondary market.

ARMs were never designed really to purchase and then "refinance". So the ARM is not the problem, the government and greedy lenders are.

The probable reason for the broker trying to push an ARM on you is that they could not figure out how to qualify you at the higher fixed rate. Trust me, if they could have, they would have given you the loan. They work on commission and incentives.

Gladly, you found someone who qualified you at the fixed rate that you wanted. Tweaking the Fannie and Freddie mandated front and back end ratios became a game with lots of brokers.

[fltoo]

There are others on that soapbox with you...on top of what you state above, think about the large numbers of foreclosures and bankruptcies occurring. Someone has to pick up the tab for all of that and just as we do for insurance fraud, welfare and government fraud, shoplifting and employee theft, just to give a few examples, we all end up paying for all the write-offs and BKs, the same folks had to do when we filed BK. It ends up as rising costs on everything from services, food to day-to-day necessities. What just occurred with this "bailout" situation is a good example.

I can't speak to why the high BK rates since I have no previous knowledge of the system, but, for sure there is only one reason for the high number of foreclosures due to bad loans....government's politically correct attitude and lenders taking advantage of this position to the hilt.

[Flamingo]

Well.............. When I was 20, I had a /barely/ 500 credit score. I was making decent money, but didn't take into account the cost of the baby I had on the way. I was approved for 100% financing on a $70,000 house. My dad's girlfriend at the time was a mortgage broker. She told me all the way up until closing that it would be cheaper to own than rent, but my payments (with PMI) were $912. 6 months later the bank was calling and threatening to foreclose. Luckily (by the grace of God) I put the house up FSBO and closed on the exact date that I was due to foreclose. This was all in a fixed rate mortgage..... and I've forgotten what my point is, but I will post this anyway and hopefully with re-reading through I will remember.

I did a lot of settlement work back in the late 70s and early 80s before moving to some different areas in my career (paralegal) and while I thoroughly enjoyed doing settlements and all the work involved in preparing one (property seaches, document prep., etc.), mortgages starting changing with balloon options being provided as mortgage lenders/banks were trying to get more folks into houses. I remember my boss (great attorney) at that time telling me that at all costs, present and future, never take out one of those types of mortgages in any way, shape or form. We have never had a balloon or ARM. After seeing the problems these mortgages have caused so many people to the benefit of broker's pockets, my boss, so long ago, knew the problems that could arise out of the situation right at the beginning of it all. If you can't afford the payment, you can't afford the item. Simple as that.

[JRScott]

I was at work so I did not get to see or pay attention to the whole debate, I only caught snippets. Both made gaffs, though I'm not certain they were intentional. After all how many citizens actually know how many soldiers we have in Iraq? I'm pretty sure most do not.

What I saw here was a Washington Insider debating an Outsider. Joe Biden has a certain charisma to him, but after 35 years in the Senate he's slowed down a bit. He spent to much time perhaps in the past I felt than in the future. Palin has a charisma about her, she's certainly more charismatic than Biden or McCain having a charisma probably equal to Obama's.

I am disappointed though in the debates. I feel all candidates from all parties who can mathematically win the electoral college no matter how improbable should be included in all debates. I was almost tempted just for kicks answered Root to Fox and Friends poll just to see if they paid attention, but I didn't do that. (Root is the VP nominee for the Barr ticket for those that don't know).

I liked most of all the snippet of Palin I found that I think is really instrumental if we are to get this nation back on track and that is personal responsibility. The more we have moved away from that as a nation the more trouble we have found in our nation. Sadly H.R. 1424 shows that the front ends of these tickets are not really into personal responsibility or they would never have passed it.

[banca rotta]

I support modifications of loans if:

They are in foreclosure and they were making all their payments before the rate adjusted. I purchased my home 7 years ago and they were really trying to push me to take an adjustable rate mortgage. I put my foot down after going to three places and told them I wanted it at a FIXED rate. I even told one lender that he mentioned it again I was walking.. He did.. I walked

Now.. if these people were pushed or baited into the loan or lied to saying it would most likely only adjust at a half point or one point. That's my concern.Again I support this if they were making payments prior to the reset. They should be allowed to get a pass. It's kind of like our credit cards.. You miss one payment and they jack the rate up. Now.. individuals make one mistake.. and they lose their house?

Is it fair to me the responsible person? No. However, be unfair to me rather than watching a family lose their home and having homes near me abandoned dropping the value of the homes around me. Just my 2 cents

A agree with most of this. If it will avoid forclosure and save a dying neighborhood then it's needed.

What I still don't understand about the people that were "pushed or baited" that felt they were victims is don’t people get attorneys anymore to handle all these things? You would think that a home buyer’s attorney would explain a lot of these ARM options and resets to them. Then again even in bk cases as some of us know sometimes the attorney can drop the ball.

[banca rotta]

What surprised me watching the Biden/Palin debate, is that she never commented/answered the moderator's question about bankruptcy trustees not being allowed to re-do mortgage/other loan payments when potential filers might lose their house or their car.
She just went on and on and on changing the subject.
I guess this is just typical Republican BS.

I think you may have meant "political BS". That generally covers what they all are about.

Remember Biden is in bed with big banks in Wilmington since he lives there and so he proudly signed bk reform a few years back along with McCain. He actually tried to defend it by saying something about only 10% of filers were forced into a chapter 13. He said it was complicated and ducked the issue too.